On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:00 PM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> That should happen directly without C's involvement if the netmask is
>> 255.255.0.0 on A and B's eth1 interfaces.
>
> It is not. The netmask on those interfaces is 255.255.255.0.
Netmasks apply to (and describe) connected subnets, not individual
interfaces. Linux will sort-of sometimes work with mismatched subnet
masks but some things won't see arp broadcasts with the wrong
broadcast address (which again is for the whole subnet).
>>
>>> Instead it goes to Eth0 on C where it dies as one would
>>> expect.
>>
>> Why does C have both internet and LAN addresses on the same
>> interfaces?
>>
>
> I am experimenting to see if this arrangement is workable. I want to
> know if it is possible to have two separate 192.168.x subnets on the
> same network.
Some things might work sometimes. You can overlay separate subnets on
the same wire, each with a correct subnet mask, and a designated
router between them, but random things will happen with mixed
netmasks.
> Why? I do not have a purpose in mind. I am just
> checking out whether it can work or not.
You would probably be better off using VLANs than overlays in any case.
> If it is impossible then then I will discover why that is so, which I
> think will be useful in itself.
The broadcast address for a subnet is tied to the bits in the subnet
mask, and ethernets need arp broadcasts to work.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
